is a bigger table a bad thing?

[johngalt2004]

I'm reviewing a bunch of AGS 0 stones, and the apparent best size/color/clarity bargain available to me has a 57 table. A similar one with a 55 table is about 11% more (same size, color and clarity). Is it likely to be worth it? I'm not trying to go cheap but don't want to throw away money either.

Is this a normal price difference? Is a 57 table a compromise? Or is an AGS 0 going to look fine whether it is 55 or 57 table (I have the impression that a 55 table is perfecter than a 57)

Actually I'll elaborate. I am choosing between these stones, all AGS 0:

1.02, H, VS2, 55 table
1.11, H, SI1, 56 table (same price)

1.20, H, SI1, 57 table (price of the two above plus 13%)
1.21 H, SI1, 55 table (price of the 1.20 immediately above plus 11%)

Which of these strikes the best value/$ compromise? I think "go bigger" for moderate extra bucks (thinking a 1.2 should blow away my wife who has had a .64 all these ten years), but does the table size within the ideal range matter?

 

[stebbo]

GIA Ex''s are possible from 52% to 62%, AGS 0''s are possible from 47% to 61%.

There''s nothing between a 55 and 57 table.

 

[strmrdr]

are they all eyeclean and what is the rest of the data?
With si1 non-eyeclean ones will often be discounted.

 

[Ellen]

Any of those tables are just fine. And I ditto strms questions.

 

[oldminer]

In a perfectly free market everything should matter, but the reality is that it is a free market, but not a perfect one. The Value may be superior with the most costly or the least costly stone of the four. It could be one in between. The nuance differences in cut quality or light behavior between finely cut diamonds are often invisble to the eye just as VVS1 is invisibly different to VVS2 to the eye. These tiny differences are the points over which dealers argue daily. Prices are not fixed, but float within certain ranges since no two diamonds are truly identical. In practical terms, the least costly diamond may be perfect for you regardless of whether it is the "best" of the four or not. It is going to blow away the old .64ct diamond no matter what. Spend the difference on a night on the town a couple times, or throw in a little pair of earrings for good measure.

We now can detect and quantify the invisbly different levels of Light Behavior. For those who want the "most brilliant" or the one with "most sparkle", we can measure with high repeatability, a 2% range. Whether your eyes can see it or not, machines can separate with higher discrimination.

 

[johngalt2004]

Thanks David and others.

I think I might be an unusual customer with an unusual psychology, but this present probably means more to me that to my wife. It is our 10th and I will have a hard time if I know I skimped (while at the same time I don''t have an unlimited budget).

If I know I saved $800 to simply get a smaller diamond (1.11 vs 1.20) I''ll feel funny. Now on the other hand if I saved $800 to get a higher clarity and smaller diamond that might actually be more psychologically palatable to me, so I guess the 1.11 has compromise written all over it no matter how I slice it and I think I have just now disqualified it in my mind. But the size diff between 1.0 and 1.2 is substantial no? It costs $800 and one clarity grade to do that step up. I guess this is probably a very crude way to look at it.

On the other hand, I guess because I can''t easily quantify the difference between the two bigger ones I can with a very clear conscience save that $1K, buy the "cheaper" 1.2, and earmark THAT $1K as the money I''ll spend on her some other way. I think I have actually come that far in my thinking that I am sort of looking for confirmation that, assuming eye clean, it would be frivolous to spend $1K more for the comfort of a perfect 55 table versus a 57 table. The stones are true eye-cleans, he won''t sell them to me if they aren''t and I won''t buy them.

I know this is probably nutty thinking and I should have no problem buying the least expensive of this bunch, but it is MY 10th anniversary too.... so I''ve backed myself into a psychological corner I guess

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2007 11:03:27 AM
Author: johngalt2004

But the size diff between 1.0 and 1.2 is substantial no?

Re: Size difference

What are the mm measurements of your candidates?

BTW, I think John Galt is a fantastic SN. I thought about using it.

 

[johngalt2004]

He''s going to get back to me later with the HCA angles (although I think he believes it is redundant to the AGS light performance grade). I''ll ask him for the diameter then.

Is the point going to be that the size diff is likely not visible between a 55 table 1ct, a 56 table 1.11, and a 57 table 1.2? Can those diameters be estimated to make that same point?

That would be helpful info. But essentially "doubling" the weight of her current stone sounds impressive and I like how it rolls of the tongue (I know it is .08 short of actually doubling the weight and I imagine the size diff between the .64 and the 1.2 is about one mm huh)

Is it your opinion then that it is sucker dough spent on going from 1.11 to 1.2? If so that is a good point to consider. Again it is such a crude way to look at it but as the price increase is not insanely disproportional to the weight increase (8% size increase for 13% price increase feels not unreasonable), it seems sensible to do it. But that may be a dumb way to look at it. Also, no matter what rules you use in the business I can call this 1 1/4 with a straight face which I can''t do with the 1.11 (if trade rules prohibit that kind of rounding I don''t care lol).

Maybe I''m expecting too much wow factor for the extra size...

Maybe I really should have just thrown a dart at a board

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2007 2:41:48 PM
Author: johngalt2004
He's going to get back to me later with the HCA angles (although I think he believes it is redundant to the AGS light performance grade). I'll ask him for the diameter then.

The AGS light performance grade is a decisive pedigree where the HCA is largely for rejection, so I agree with him. It will still be nice to know the angles, as there are different (equally appealing) 'looks' within the 0 grade.

Is the point going to be that the size diff is likely not visible between a 55 table 1ct, a 56 table 1.11, and a 57 table 1.2? Can those diameters be estimated to make that same point?

There is no way to know without mm measurements. Don't mistake carat weight for size. The diameter determines face-up appearance, not weight. Carat weight is just like people weight...how much someone weighs doesn't determine how big they'll look viewed from the top. Two guys, both weighing 200 lbs, will have different top-down silhouettes if one of them is 5' tall and the other is 6' tall.

Since these are both ideal cuts they should be somewhat similar (likely between 60-62% depth), and the larger weight may indeed spread larger. Girdle thickness and angles play a part in how big the 'spread' will be though, and a 1.10 and 1.20 may be a bit apart, close together or even the same. If both were cut at 61% depth with a 1% girdle thickness they would be appx 6.70 and 6.90 mm respectively.

Is it your opinion then that it is sucker dough spent on going from 1.11 to 1.2? If so that is a good point to consider. Again it is such a crude way to look at it but as the price increase is not insanely disproportional to the weight increase (8% size increase for 13% price increase feels not unreasonable), it seems sensible to do it. But that may be a dumb way to look at it. Also, no matter what rules you use in the business I can call this 1 1/4 with a straight face which I can't do with the 1.11 (if trade rules prohibit that kind of rounding I don't care lol).

Not at all. Price increases disproportionately with weight. That's why a slightly spready stone can be a good deal against one with too much depth. Let's see how the mm measurements come in. You seem attracted to the higher weight from a "mind clean" perspective, and that's fine too. How you 'feel' about a stone is very important.

 

[johngalt2004]

John you are pretty much cementing WF''s reputation with me - which Lesley established the day before yesterday.

I am in a committed relationship with a different vendor on this purchase (for better or worse pretty much since he already has a suitcase full of my cash) but I promise you and Lesley both that I will always refer to WF highly to friends, and will consider WF strongly for a future purchase. I really like your style and you guys have both been helpful to me in the shopping process.

Thanks for your input on this. I have to admit I''m almost sorta kinda pulling for the bigger stones to be barely visibly included so I can get the super mind-clean vs2 and feel like I didn''t "go cheap". But if it is clean, then you are right - I have a "mind size" issue that is kind of real that I probably have to honor . I can''t see a really likely scenario where I push the 1.11 back into the discussion unless the 1.2 comes back with unappealing clarity... then I can take it from the top with the only question being the .11 size increase versus a clarity downgrade which will boil down simply to a question of how good the 1.11 SI1 is.

Thanks again so much.

 

[JohnQuixote]

We're happy to help Mr. Galt. The more educated consumers the better and it sounds like you've done your homework. Keep us posted and feel free to send Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart to PS if they need assistance.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

sorry, Double post

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

did we ever hear the mm measurements? and all of the other numbers just for the heck of it?

 

[johngalt2004]

The seller is not really an "on line" type, and I pestered him with about a dozen calls yesterday... some of which bordered on psychotic on my part. So my wife has requested that I dial it back on the intensity a bit.

On line there is such instant gratification... but with this guy I will let the numbers come to me (if I can.... I am trying to be good). I''m prone to lots of anxiety/suspicion... a "what''s the catch, is this one of the no good steep zeros I''ve read about somewhere" type of mentality and am going to work hard to spare the guy who does have other customers and soccer games etc to attend to.

But I will post when I get numbers. I''m actually interested to ask him the spread, crown and pavilion angles, but I already did ask him to shoot me those numbers and need to give him a minute (day) I reckon... he''s living in the slow analog world.

Are there diamonds earning a zero light return score that suck? Like on the steep side? Or if you get an AGS zero can you be fairly well assured of terrific light return which would seem to by definition exclude the "too steep" ones?

 

[aljdewey]

"(I have the impression that a 55 table is perfecter than a 57)"

OK.....I'll bite:

What has given you the impression that a 55 table is somehow more perfect than a 57 table, or that a 57 table is in any way inferior?

The way you've posted the information about these stones, it appears you are assuming a correlation between table size and price, and I think that's a possibly faulty assumption.

Here's what you wrote:

1.02, H, VS2, 55 table
1.11, H, SI1, 56 table (same price)


1.20, H, SI1, 57 table (price of the two above plus 13%)
1.21 H, SI1, 55 table (price of the 1.20 immediately above plus 11%)

You've also said these are all AGS0 stones. However, it's important for you to know that all "AGS0' stones are not necessarily alike or created equal.

Some AGS0 stones are also H&A (which commands a premium); others are not. Doesn't mean the non H&A stones are inferior; it just means that you will pay a premium for a perfect H&A pattern.

AGS revamped their grading criteria about two (?) years ago, and the current criteria for earning that grade are more stringent than they had been previously. Since AGS allowed stones to be called AGS0 under the dealer's choice of system (old AGS0 or new AGS0) up until I think earlier this year, it's possible to have a stone graded within the last two years that still earned the AGS0 level using the old (less stringent) parameters.

All of this means: it's possible (and likely probably) that the price variations you're seeing have more to do with something other than table size. In your first pair (1.02 vs. 1.11), I'd guess the clarity difference has more to do with the price difference than table size does.

For your second pair where the stones are fairly similar is weight, color and clarity, I'd suspect that the higher priced one is possibly a hearts-and-arrows stone (which commands a premium over an AGS0 that isn't H&A), or it's possibly a branded stone.

I really doubt that table size accounts for price discrepancy in either instance.

 

[johngalt2004]

I guess since 55 is dead in the middle of the ideal table parameters (52.5 - 57.5 midpoint is 55) I thought 55 was "more ideal" than 57. I read one site, might have been niceice.com, where it said it is best to be as close to the middle of the parameters as possible.

I''ve been precise with the broker about it being a modern AGS 0 which includes the light grade. We discussed that feature of the grading (he had one that was disqualified only for a 1 score on symmetry - I''m kind of ashamed that I''m too psyched out to take that one, but it demonstrates that we''re on the same page about the grading. Next time I speak to him I am going to ask him if the spreads are appropriate for the size diff and if any are too deep. I know he will roll his eyes but I won''t see it... I''ll just hear it lol.

But I guess I still have the question, can a MODERN AGS 0 graded stone which includes the light return spec be "too deep"? It doesn''t make sense, almost as if that in itself would negate the "too deep" model if a "too deep" stone could score a zero for light return?

I am grateful for all the replies and insights. Diamond newbs like me must be annoying.

Also, is the H&A pattern something evident from an AGS cert? And has it been demonstrated that a H&A can be distinguished from another AGS 0 with the naked eye?

Thanks again everyone.

 

[hgau999]

I''m no expert but typically you want an ideal cut diamond that falls within these specs:

table: 55-58%
depth: 60-62%
crown: 34-35 deg.
pavillion: 40-41 deg.

girdle: Thin, Medium, or Slightly Thick

I been shopping around for a stone for my fiancee and been trying to stick to stones between 60-61 for depth with thin - medium girdles so as to maximize the spread. I think 55-58% tables size are typically safe tables sizes.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:20:43 AM
Author: johngalt2004
I guess since 55 is dead in the middle of the ideal table parameters (52.5 - 57.5 midpoint is 55) I thought 55 was 'more ideal' than 57. I read one site, might have been niceice.com, where it said it is best to be as close to the middle of the parameters as possible.


I've been precise with the broker about it being a modern AGS 0 which includes the light grade. We discussed that feature of the grading (he had one that was disqualified only for a 1 score on symmetry - I'm kind of ashamed that I'm too psyched out to take that one, but it demonstrates that we're on the same page about the grading. Next time I speak to him I am going to ask him if the spreads are appropriate for the size diff and if any are too deep. I know he will roll his eyes but I won't see it... I'll just hear it lol.


But I guess I still have the question, can a MODERN AGS 0 graded stone which includes the light return spec be 'too deep'? It doesn't make sense, almost as if that in itself would negate the 'too deep' model if a 'too deep' stone could score a zero for light return?


I am grateful for all the replies and insights. Diamond newbs like me must be annoying.


Also, is the H&A pattern something evident from an AGS cert? And has it been demonstrated that a H&A can be distinguished from another AGS 0 with the naked eye?


Thanks again everyone.

Well, first I want to say this. you have made it clear to him that you are going to be very stringent in analyzing the cut grade. Therefore, the fact that he didnt provide all those numbers to you upfront is offensive in my mind. However, having accepted that about you he should be EXPECTING you to ask him to give you the information that is readily available on the certificate--such as:

exact DEPTH PERCENTAGE
girdle percentages
date of the report along with a report number for online verification
all angles
LGF
STAR
mm measurements
along with everything else that is on the report preferebly with a fax or at least description of inclusion, placements, types and color of said inclusions.

So if he rolls his eyes at you for wanting to know depth percentage and mm spread, then I say you should seriously evaluate him and his commitment to work with you, as that is just BARE MINIMUM that he should be providing you and requires nothing but having it read off the certificate for you.

And no, Hearts and Arrows is not designated on the AGS report. As of the moment there is no conclusive evidence to say that having a "perfect" hearts pattern is going to have any visible difference from a diamond that already has and AGS0--which in truth should generally indicate at least a decent hearts pattern from the pavilion side.

Gary has said that he believes it offers a slight crispness to the scintillation that is preferable to the eyes, and he said in a previous thread that there is ongoing research to defend that position and evaluate further exactly how near perfection in symmetry indicated by the Hearts pattern affects the visible display of light.

I would suspect its a null issue as I imagine any kind of dirt or dust on the stone would totally negate any slight crispness caused by the super ideal symmetry--but I am just a regular ole consumer so listen to the pros on that I suppose. However, here in America we dont have any sortof defined rules for what can be called "Hearts and Arrows" thus if you ask your guy, and he is asking somebody else there is no telling what the heck they are calling "hearts" so I would say your best bet is to invest a couple of bucks into a symmetry scope bring it out and first check for the arrows face up just to be sure, then check the pavilion side of your diamond. It will take a while to get it at the right angle, but if you can view what appears as a pretty decent heart patterning and have that attached with an AGS0 then you really should not have anything to worry about. And of course, if it is labeled a hearts and arrows diamond it will carry a premium, but because that term is NOT defined by AGS you need to ask who said it was a hearts and arrows pattern and what rules were governing his decision, for as I said it may very well amount to a meaningless title intended to do nothing but jack up the price.

Also, I think the idea of being in the center of ideal as being more ideal is just rubbish. You shouldn't think about any one parameter as being correct, and certainly not one ideal parameter over another. Its all about angles interacting with one another and slight nearly imperceptible trade-offs between light performance qualities at that point. But to just explain "Better" as being "in the center" just doesn't seem particularly scientific to me, and it certainly isn't how I imagine the world working, at any rate.

 

[johngalt2004]

Gosh, he hasn''t refused to provide me anything. He just read off about a dozen diamonds from a list and did not have certs handy at the moment. The list only included AGS 0 stones but he read a dozen different size/clarity/price combinations. So I narrowed it to three and said I think the 1.2 is frontrunner.

I''m sure he will give me the spread and angles and stuff next time we talk.

I think I''ve seen on line ideal diamonds this size (1.2) as wide as 6.9 and as narrow as 6.82. Would 6.82 or below constitute a low end of the spectrum and be a candidate for rejection?

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

you should probably focus more on depth percentage for weeding out I would think, and just consider the difference between the two in mm spread when deciding if it is worth the money.

Sorry I got pretty heated

just writing online and getting carried away, and not knowing exactly what had transpired

 

[johngalt2004]

It is ok I am nervous as heck and defensive and confused and hoping and praying for a good outcome and right now trying to stay cool. I am grateful for all the insight and expertise here. I could have just let it lay with a nice cut (1 proportion) EGL but it was overpriced and now I''m trying to salvage a better deal by focusing on ags 0''s which are more of a known quantity and I am kind of assuming an automatic top drawer product by virtue of the ags paper. I would rather pay for a certified ags zero than for a nice ELG stone. Trying to make the best of it... could be it all comes out fine but I''m ultra touchy and worried about it. Wish me luck. Wish I''d started here ... next time will do better.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/14/2007 2:00:24 AM
Author: johngalt2004
It is ok I am nervous as heck and defensive and confused and hoping and praying for a good outcome and right now trying to stay cool. I am grateful for all the insight and expertise here. I could have just let it lay with a nice cut (1 proportion) EGL but it was overpriced and now I''m trying to salvage a better deal by focusing on ags 0''s which are more of a known quantity and I am kind of assuming an automatic top drawer product by virtue of the ags paper. I would rather pay for a certified ags zero than for a nice ELG stone. Trying to make the best of it... could be it all comes out fine but I''m ultra touchy and worried about it. Wish me luck. Wish I''d started here ... next time will do better.

You are on the right track looking at AGS0''s. That WILL take a lot of the guesswork out. Just compare them and let your eyes tell you which one you like the most. They are not all created equal, but they will all be nice stones. Be sure and ask if you can look at them by the window. See which ones look best away from the fancy lighting.

And while I understand you wishing you''d started here first (I ended up here after disasterous local shopping), don''t give up on this guy just yet. If he now understands you''re a more savy shopper, can produce really nice stones for you to pick from, that are reasonably priced, and treats you with respect, you''ve got it made in the shade! Ideally, almost all of us would all prefer that, but many of us just can''t find it, and therefore shop online. You just may have found a friend for life.

Please let us know how it goes!

 

[johngalt2004]

Thanks for the good thoughts Ellen. Indications are that he may come through ok (although he doesn''t check in as often as I''d like). While that EGL was nice looking, it was impossible for me to liken it to the market and feel it was a good or even reasonable deal... and that said I did not ever set out to get a 1 cut anyway. I immediately got out from under that deal but it left me in the hole with him holding my cash.

I think when I presented some PS pricing examples to him he stepped to the plate. I may still be paying too much, but what the heck I will say what the prices are (I have been keeping them secret for fear of being thought ridiculous). But the deals on the table now are much better than a 1.01 EGL 1 cut SI2 H for $4500 (I have to say the SI2 was very very clean, but I am suspicious of the color due to EGL''s rep).

These are the AGS 0''s I''m choosing from .... no representation that any are H&A:

1.02 VS2 H, $6200
1.11 SI1 H, $6200
1.2 SI1 H, $7000

And as I mentioned there was a 1.21 SI1 H that was $8000 which I disqualified but maybe that one is a H&A (which I still would not pay extra $1K for).
I disqualified many SI2''s because I don''t want to have to look the other way on a visible inclusion - I apprecaite WF''s notion of mind-clean.

So that is the story... before I leap with finality at the 1.2 I will confirm some angles and spread and reconsider... but hopefully one of these will be stellar and not a horrible price.